Arrogant R-sole

[saintkev]

In today's The Game section of the West Australian newspaper Buckley is quoted as saying, "We had a narrow victory (over the Saints) that should have been a lot more substantial than that." Perhaps??!! If umpiring decisions (paid and unpaid) are taken into consideration.
However, statistics would indicate otherwise. Apart from the lopsided free-kick count and shots at goal (inaccurate kicking indicates poor football and implies substantial pressure by the Saints), possessions were relatively close with 373 to Collingwood and 376 to St Kilda. Inside 50s were about even. Tackles 66 to the Saints and 63 to the 'Pies.
The discrepancies are in effective kicks 59% to the Saints and 68% to the 'Pies and critical errors 59 to the Saints and 49 to the Magpies. What these statistics suggest is that the Saints were more effective in using their lesser percentage of effective kicks, by kicking more accurately. In fact, making 10 more critical errors didn't really hurt us on the scoreboard due to Magpie incompetence.
Collingwood were fortunate to escape with a win. Had the Saints been a little more composed and efficient, in spite of the skewed umpiring, the outcome could have been different.
I could go on with "whatevers." They won't alter the result. The Saints lost.... but if Buckley was being truly honest with the public, supporters and himself he should have thanked the umpires for the win instead of belittling St Kilda's efforts.
Hopefully he continues to keep his head buried in the sand and a ruthless Sydney slaughters Collingwood on Saturday.

[I love the saints!]

Well said.